Manufacturing schedules

By mbcross on Mon, 08/03/2026 - 10:05

Forums

I have not used the manufacturing censuses. I went ahead and copied the information from the "Source Citation" listed at Ancestry for the "citing..." layer.

1880 US census, Lincoln Co., N.C., Catawba Springs Township, manufacturing schedule, enumeration district 110, unnumbered p. 1, Henry Brevard, blacksmithing; imaged, “U.S., Selected Federal Census Non-Population Schedules, 1850-1880,” Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1276/records/3434750); citing “National Archives at Washington, DC; Washington, DC; Non-population Census Schedules for North Carolina, 1850-1880: Agriculture (part) and Manufacturing; NAID: 2791276; Record Group Number: 29; Record Group Title: Records of the Bureau of the Census, 1790-2007."

Submitted byEEon Mon, 08/03/2026 - 19:27

Matthew, see EE4's §7.31: Nonpopulation Schedules.  The example there is for the 1880 "Defective, Dependent, and Delinquent Classes," schedule, but the format is the same—and it's much shorter than all the unneeded details that Ancestry gives us.  

After reviewing §7.31, I have the following:

1880 US census, Lincoln Co., N.C., manufacturing sch., Catawba Springs Township, enumeration district (ED) 110, unnumbered p. 1, Henry Brevard, blacksmithing; imaged, “U.S., Selected Federal Census Non-Population Schedules, 1850-1880,” Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1276/records/3434750); citing NARA microfilm publication M1805.

But is that sufficient? I could not locate a roll number at the following link associated with the collection on Ancestry: https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1276/moreinfo

 

Matthew, see EE4's Census chapter, §7.8 Citing Roll Number :  "If you use microfilm, your First Reference Note needs to cite the specific roll on which you find your data ...." 

These days, researchers are not reading U.S. census rolls on microfilm. We're using online images, made (usually) from FamilySearch microfilm, which was made from NARA microfilm, which was made from the manuscripts that are at the National Archives in sub-series < series < record groups.

In cases such as this, with major materials whose derivation is standard and well-known, every iteration between the original and the image we use does not have to be recounted unless there is something exceptional about a particular instance. (To put it another way: somewhere, amid that madness, we have to draw a line.)  So,

  1. we cite the imaged census;
  2. we cite the website version that we used. 

There's no longer any reason to cite the NARA film number or roll number. See Template 13: Census (Online Image) and §7.10: Image Copies: Digital or Microfilm, especially the latter's passage:

"Under current research conditions, it is not necessary to create a third 'citing ...' layer to report the specific microfilm identified by your image provider. It is far more important to identify the provider, because image quality varies between providers and any given census page may be more or less legible, depending upon which provider you have used."